 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3796
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: Squabbles break out in loans backlash..... |
 |
|
see - http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/58285.html
Squabbles break out in loans backlash
| Quote: | Even a prime minister's best laid plans can be derailed. When Tony Blair called yesterday's press conference in Downing Street earlier this week, he intended to champion the controversial education legislation he had driven through the Commons on Wednesday night.
Instead, the education debate, and even his reliance on the Tories to win the vote, were completely overshadowed by a row over multi-million pounds loans made to the Labour party in the run-up to last year's general election.
Jack Dromey, the Labour party treasurer and deputy general of the Transport and General Workers Union, had made sure of that. On Wednesday night, as well as revealing the Labour party had received donations about which he knew nothing, he appeared to launch a forensic attack on the prime minister.
Mr Blair knew there was no ducking cash-for-peerages, or loangate as the episode has been dubbed. On the defensive, he admitted he knew about the secret loans from three business backers – Chai Patel, chief executive of the Priory Healthcare group; Barry Townsley, a stockbroker; and Sir David Garrard, a property developer, loaned £3.5m to the party.
Mr Blair revealed that while he had nominated them for peerages he did not tell the appointments committee, res-ponsible for vetting nominations to the House of Lords, about the loans. Mr Blair had not broken the rules – only donations must be declared – but he implicitly acknowledged that the Labour party had not acted within the spirit of the law.
He declared the system would be changed. Loans would not put on the same basis as gifts and so, in future, would be declared. The failure to declare the loans had been bad enough, but the real intrigue at Westminster yesterday centred on Mr Dromey's decision to stick the knife into the prime minister just as he was facing a critical vote.
Last night, senior Labour figures were accusing Mr Dromey of high-level treachery, and were accusing him of being in cahoots with Gordon Brown and the chancellor's allies.
Mr Dromey discovered he had not been told about the loans at the weekend. He was furious and complained loudly at a meeting attended by John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, Ian McCartney, the party chairman, who had known about the loans, and party officials on Wednesday afternoon.
Mr Prescott told cabinet colleagues yesterday that Mr Dromey had agreed to write an interim report for the National Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday, and the meeting broke up at 5.10pm on Wednesday.
Then, to the fury of Mr McCartney and Mr Prescott, Mr Dromey released an unexpected statement 15 minutes later, and toured television and radio studious to condemn the loan transactions, and call in the advice of the Electoral Commission.
The prime minister chose not to get involved in the internal party squabbling yesterday. Taking full responsibility for the Labour party, and admitting Mr Dromey should have been told about the loans (even though his role is an honorary one), Mr Blair unveiled plans to ensure more transparency in the future. He dismissed suggestions that Mr Dromey's revelations were an attempt to drive him out of office.
Beyond Downing Street, it was a different matter. Labour loyalists, as well as diehard Blairites, accused Mr Dromey of intending to hurt the prime minister to hasten his demise.
One Labour insider ridiculed Mr Dromey's claims, insisting they said more about him than they did about Mr Blair. "The loans were registered in the monthly accounts. If he had read the accounts, he would have known about them, so it is fair to conclude that either he didn't read them, or read them and was satisfied.
"If he had asked, as was his right, where the money was coming from, he would have been told. The truth is Jack never showed the slightest interest in the accounts," he said.
The timing of the assault, only an hour before MPs voted on the controversial education legislation, raised further questions. One Labour backbencher said: "Why last night, why on the very night the prime minister was struggling for every vote? Why did he not give Tony, or his NEC colleagues any warning? I'll tell you why. He thought Tony would be wounded and his intervention would be the last straw."
Back in the heady days of New Labour, Mr Dromey and Harriet Harman, his wife and the constitutional affairs minister, were paid-up Blairites, but, like others, have changed their allegiance to Mr Brown.
Last night, their friends insisted that the attack on the prime minister was not orchestrated. Others clearly think differently.
The key players
Lord Levy
The multi-millionaire tennis partner of the prime minister has been described as the "king of the cronies". His unpopularity with grassroots Labour members is matched with equal vigour by Tony Blair's fondness for the former music business mogul. Lord Levy was born in Hackney and lives in a multi-million pound mansion in Mill Hill.
Jack Dromey
He is deputy general secretary of the T&G union and is also Labour party treasurer. The husband of Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, he has sought to distance himself from Blairism and cultivate a more left-wing image when he stood for the post of general secretary. He lost that vote and was elected deputy in 2003.
Background: The search for a fresh solution to an age-old problem
Rows over the funding of political parties date back as far as the democratic system itself, and Tony Blair is not the first party leader to wish he could end the need to raise millions to fight elections.
From the days of "rotten boroughs" controlled by wealthy patrons to David Lloyd George's sale of peerages and Harold Wilson's "lavender list" honours for party donors, money and politics have always been bed-fellows. With election campaigns costing up to £20m and expensive party machines to run between ballots, every leader faces the imperative to raise funds.
Some – Mr Blair among them – have looked wistfully at a system of state funding as the solution. None, however, has dared risk the likely electoral backlash.
In the late twentieth century, it was widely assumed the Tories were in hock to a cabal of millionaire businessmen and corporations, while Labour was in the pocket of the trade unions providing 90% of its income. They traded insults over their sources of funding, but there was little impetus for reform.
The "cash-for-question" scandals of John Major's administration led to widespread public revulsion.
The Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended controls on donations to raise public confidence in the system.
Mr Major took the first steps, but it was Mr Blair who set up the Electoral Commission in 2001 to promote the integrity of the democratic process and monitor the funding of political parties.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, all gifts of £5000 or more must be declared to the Commission. The Act also barred parties from taking gifts from individuals or companies based overseas.
Mr Blair acknowledged at his monthly press conference that more remains to be done.
Whatever solution he comes up with, there can be little doubt that rows over money will continue to dog politics for as long as there is influence to be bought and rich men willing to pay for it. |
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What's the deal with the loans? Are they interest-free, with no repayment date? Surely if they are ever expected to repay them, it would unsustainable for Labour. I think all parties should be state funded, but another partial solution might be to prevent political parties going into debt, and only to be allowed to spend what they can raise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3796
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
or how about abolishing political parties altogether?
....works for the Swiss.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
parkhead_rfb
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i would rather that limits were set on individual donations, say a few hundred pounds at most over a certain time period. state funding of parties really isnt viable.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP
"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2598
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: y |
|
|
They are not really loans SLG, thats part of the problem.
Two of Labours lenders offered a donation but were persuaded by Labour to call it a loan. That way they get to keep it off the books for the electoral commission and do not need to say where or who it came from. So, for instance, If, say for instance, Willie Haughey made a donation to the party. What happens is that we can see that he has been awarded on OBE and was given massive over the odds compebsation for his premises on the route of the proposed M74 extension. Haughey and Labour are accused, quite rightly, of pulling a flanker. Haughet gives Labour cash, labour approve the M74 and Hugheys compebsation deal, Haughey gets OBE.
If Haughey had given a loan rather than a donation he would not have been exposed as yet one more rich fat cat lining their pckets and New Labours.
After its all done, the lender chagnes his loan to a donation. Then you get a donation from a rich guy who profited from New Labours polices rather than a donation from someone to influence policy for their profit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lothian Sky
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 350
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd love to see the terms of these "loans"...
Paid back 20pence a week?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
